Q: A consumer purchased a wedding dress from a local seller for €839. During the reception, while the bride was dancing, she realised that the dress’ sewing was tearing apart around the zip. Luckily, the bride’s mother managed to temporarily fix it with some pins. When the bride took off the dress she noticed that the sewing around the zip was coming off.

The bride’s mother temporarily sewed the dress so the bride could wear it for the post-wedding photoshoot. Around a month later, when the bride returned from her honeymoon, she complained with the seller about the defective dress.

At first the seller agreed to give some form of compensation to the bride but then changed his mind and rejected the consumer’s claim. At this point the consumer lodged a complaint with the Office for Consumer Affairs within the MCCAA. Conciliation was carried out but the two parties did not reach an amicable solution. Hence, the consumer opted to take her case to the Consumer Claims Tribunal.

The tribunal considered that the bride had tried the dress several times and that minor alterations were carried out just a week before the wedding. The bride claimed that the alterations were needed because she had lost some weight and due to this the dress was slightly big. On the other hand, the seller claimed that the sewing tore because the bride put on weight and as a result of this the dress was too tight.

However, from the photos submitted as evidence, the bride did not seem to have weight problems. Furthermore, the notes written by the seamstress during the last alteration do not mention that the wedding dress was too tight because the bride had put on weight. Hence, without proof, the tribunal could not accept the seller’s claim. It is, in fact, more possible that the dress’ sewing came off because it was defective.

The tribunal also noted the consumer’s delay in reporting the defective dress. While it was acknowledged that newlyweds go on honeymoon after the wedding, the consumer could still have sent someone else or at least corresponded with the trader by e-mail to report the defective dress.

The tribunal also noted that the dress was temporarily repaired by the bride’s mother and this denied the seller the possibility to assess the real damage. Having said that, the tribunal still agreed that the seller was responsible for the defective dress.

It also considered that a wedding dress is bought to be worn only once or maximum twice for the post-wedding. Hence, if it turns out to be unsuitable during the wedding day it basically loses its purpose. The price that is usually paid for such a dress was also taken into consideration.

The tribunal was ready to consider the consumer’s request for a full refund if the consumer had not waited a month before complaining to the seller and if the consumer had not tried to fix the dress herself.

Hence, while the tribunal did not grant full refund to the consumer, it still awarded the consumer the sum of €500. The tribunal also ruled that the expenses of the sitting should be paid by the trader.

Sign up to our free newsletters

Get the best updates straight to your inbox:
Please select at least one mailing list.

You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link in the footer of our emails. We use Mailchimp as our marketing platform. By subscribing, you acknowledge that your information will be transferred to Mailchimp for processing.